Background Conventional consent practices face ethical challenges in continuously evolving digital health environments due to their static, one-time nature. Dynamic consent offers a promising solution, providing adaptability and flexibility to address these ethical concerns. However, due to the immaturity of the concept and accompanying technology, dynamic consent has not yet been widely used in practice. This study aims to identify the facilitators of and barriers to adopting dynamic consent in real-world scenarios. Methods This scoping review, conducted in December 2022, adhered (...) to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines, focusing on dynamic consent within the health domain. A comprehensive search across Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus yielded 22 selected articles based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results The facilitators for the adoption of dynamic consent in digital health ecosystems were the provision of multiple consent modalities, personalized alternatives, continuous communication, and the dissemination of up-to-date information. Nevertheless, several barriers, such as consent fatigue, the digital divide, complexities in system implementation, and privacy and security concerns, needed to be addressed. This study also investigated current technological advancements and suggested considerations for further research aimed at resolving the remaining challenges surrounding dynamic consent. Conclusions Dynamic consent emerges as an ethically advantageous method for digital health ecosystems, driven by its adaptability and support for continuous, two-way communication between data subjects and consumers. Ethical implementation in real-world settings requires the development of a robust technical framework capable of accommodating the diverse needs of stakeholders, thereby ensuring ethical integrity and data privacy in the evolving digital health landscape. (shrink)

보존이란 인간의 활동을 규제해서라도 야생자연이나 생물종을 있는 그대로 지켜야 한다는 사고다. 하지만 패스모어는 인간이 문명의 건설 · 발전을 위해 야생지를 개발하고 생물을 멸종시키는 현 상황이 대체 무슨 문제가 되는가 하는 물음을 제기한다. 야생지 개발과 생물종 파괴가 잘못이라는 판단에 대한 합의는 전혀 이뤄진 적이 없음에도 마치 일정한 합의가 이뤄진 것처럼 보존만이 옳은 것처럼 강조하는 이유가 대체 무엇인가 하는 것이다. 이러한 문제의식 하에 패스모어는 보존에 반대하는 논증을 전개한다. 이 글에서는 패스모어의 보존에 관한 논의 가운데 세 가지 사항을 문제삼아 그 정당성을 검토하고 있다. (...) 그 세 가지란 ①보전과 보존의 개념 문제, ②동식물의 권리 문제, 그리고 ③생물다양성의 원리 문제다. (shrink)

This paper introduces a new concept of left-side strong increases in risk (L-SIR) that extends the definition of strong increases in risk (SIR). We also provide somewhat stronger restrictive set of risk-averse decision-makers with a non-negative third derivative utility (prudence) to obtain an appealing comparative statics result for L-SIR.